TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Thil Archive

View 0 posts and 62 comments by Thil on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Precisely. And besides, the infection thing is based on research that suggests that circumcision reduces the prevalence of urinary tract infections from a rate of 1% to 0.1%. It's basically negligible. And even if you DO get an infection, so fucking what? If treated, its not serious at all. Arguing that circumcision is necessary for such reasons is completely absurd. This line of reasoning wouldn't be accepted in any other field of argument at all yet we're supposed to take these facile justific…
/r/MensRights13/09/13 04:46 PM
2

Not to mention that in ancient Judaism, Maimonides' justification for circumcision was explicitly to dull the sexual act and to deprive the boy of the full pleasure of a sexual relationship as an adult.
/r/MensRights13/09/13 04:36 PM
1

What I mean is that, the same reasons life evolved at all, are the same reasons we "sexualise" each other. Organisms wouldn't self replicate if they didn't have an interest in doing so. The motivation (for lack of a better word) behind all reproduction, is the same
/r/MensRights11/09/13 04:38 PM
1

It's not only the reason they are alive, it's the reason there's any life at all.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 03:28 AM
4

Yes, but they claim that the cause of that is sexism, when it isn't.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 03:18 AM
4

Why do they believe her? Have they seen the evidence? Have they met her? Do they know her character? The only reasonable position to take here is to say that you don't know what happened. Because that's the fucking truth, none of us know what happened. All we know is that a jury felt that there was reasonable doubt, and they couldn't send this man to life in prison based on the evidence they were shown. For all we know, he could be a rapist, yes. But she could also be a liar. The jury obviously …
/r/MensRights11/09/13 02:34 AM
6

There's absolutely NOTHING to stop women with those skills from going in those jobs. There isn't a big conspiracy of men not hiring women, even if they're qualified. If the person is qualified, has the skills, and isn't a complete asshole at the interview, then there is NOTHING stopping women from getting these jobs. I know several women who were tinkerers/"tech geeks" from their early years who have gone into tech. There are just less of them than there are men.
/r/MensRights11/09/13 12:22 AM
37

This is why I just have to laugh at feminism. Here we have a perfectly written out, succinct example of legal discrimination against fathers. There are thousands of cases like this, and every day we hear another similar horror story. Ex-lawyers, ex-judges, and all the millions of men AND women affected by this discrimination, have come forward over the years to tell us how bad it is. And still, the courts continue to ruin men and make it as hard as possible for them to do the right thing. Want t…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 10:03 PM
1

I don't know why you're being downvoted, this is just true. There are also lots of good people at the BBC, and they produce some incredible things, especially their documentaries and dramas.. But its true that it is full of left wing feminist types, to the highest level. Their reporting, whilst meant to be "impartial", clearly has a left wing bias, and this speaks to the amount of people in their organisation who hold these beliefs. Someone did a study on the different newspapers that the BBC or…
/r/MensRights08/09/13 04:18 PM
3

I've heard it numerous times.
/r/MensRights08/09/13 01:18 AM
4

The UK
/r/MensRights07/09/13 11:43 PM
1

People say faggot here.
/r/MensRights07/09/13 09:46 PM
27

This right here is a feminist troll
/r/MensRights07/09/13 05:05 PM
81

"Best interests of the child" only extends as far as men. As soon as its a woman who has to make sacrifices, it goes right out the window.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 08:47 PM
1

What?
/r/MensRights05/09/13 10:06 AM
1

Do you have a link? I'd love to see that, just for the epic justice written on the faces of those clueless fucking berks in the audience
/r/MensRights05/09/13 10:05 AM
2

Just out of curiosity.. why did you believe in the wage gap BEFORE doing the research into whether it was actually true? I'm not criticizing, just curious, because I find that this basically describes 100% of feminists, and I wonder why it is. Is it because the narrative of "women are oppressed and not equal to men" is accepted as complete fact, and then any so called "evidence" that backs that up is just accepted at face value?
/r/MensRights05/09/13 09:48 AM
2

Not without being called a rape apologist or a misogynist. Look at Warren Farrell. The guy makes a comment 15 years ago in a book, and its constantly brought up out of context everywhere he goes by feminists who want to paint him as a rapist. All because he challenged feminism.
/r/MensRights05/09/13 12:21 AM
3

What does that mean?
/r/MensRights04/09/13 11:36 PM
2

Their asset is a clothed, athletic body. They don't go around playing sport completely nude do they? Just because they're good at sports doesn't mean they should be fine with random women they don't know seeing their genitals.
/r/MensRights04/09/13 09:51 PM
1

Wow, isn't this the most clear cut example of a double standard? I mean, how can it get any more clear than that? If a male prison employee watches a female prisoner in the shower, that's sexual harassment.. But if a female prison employee watches a male prisoner in the shower, that's her right, because to have it otherwise would be discriminatory against women! Holy fuck, does it get any more ridiculous than this?
/r/MensRights04/09/13 09:48 PM
1

I can't believe she's actually serious when she says that. How can they honestly demand that its somehow their right to see men naked and getting changed?
/r/MensRights04/09/13 09:46 PM
9

I remember a few months ago when a feminist group said that, in response to women in a Scandinavian country being required to be part of the draft as men already were, that this shouldn't be the case because women are the "gentler sex" who should be left at home to look after other things. They say they want equality, and they call it misogyny whenever anyone says these things OF them, but as soon as they are required to have the same responsibilities as men they say "oh well we're women and we'…
/r/MensRights04/09/13 09:40 PM
6

When you have had your son taken away from you, and have been convicted of "domestic violence", simply because your ex wife decided to make up a bunch of lies - only to be told my feminists that this "never happens" and that you should shut up because of your "male privilege".. I don't think its unreasonable to get fucking angry, or be fucking rude.
/r/MensRights04/09/13 06:37 PM
30

I'm angry. My son was taken away from me due to this nonsense, and in the eyes of the law I am a "domestic abuser", because my ex wife decided to make up a bunch of lies. She got me fired from my job (and everyone there now thinks I'm a wife beater). She took my son away from me, and she regularly badmouths me on facebook, and is backed up by all her friends and family, who of course believe every word she says. All she had to do was put on the waterworks in the court room, and my fate was seale…
/r/MensRights04/09/13 06:35 PM
11

There were likely too many witnesses. If there had been no-one else there, and the girls were cunning enough ti file a police report before the guy and his girlfriend, it would be a different story altogether. There have been numerous cases where a woman has committed an attack on a man, only to be injured when the man defends himself.. that instantly call the police and say that they have been attacked themselves. If there is no video evidence, you're screwed, because who are the police going t…
/r/MensRights04/09/13 06:27 PM
21

Most women don't consider it their role to protect people they don't know who are being attacked. If there are men around, they'll likely just think "its their problem". There are exceptions obviously, women who have trained in martial arts, or when a close friend/a loved one is being attacked.. but in most cases they consider it to be the role of a man to sort out the situation.
/r/MensRights04/09/13 06:23 PM
20

It's ironic that feminists campaigned so hard against the idea of "female hysteria", yet when it suits them, they'll just claim "oh she was overwhelmed" or "emotional" and expect that to be ample justification for a vicious attack with a deadly weapon.
/r/MensRights04/09/13 06:21 PM
5

It's because they assume that because THEY have no problems with their own circumcision, that every man should feel this way. They don't respect the bodily autonomy of infant boys, to put it simply. They don't respect the boy's right to grow up for himself and decide when he is of the age of reason, whether he wants to be circumcised or not. They think that because they personally have no problems with it, it isn't a big deal and we should just do it to boys all the time.
/r/MensRights03/09/13 04:25 PM
4

You can try.. but if someone is coming at you with a knife.. you'll notice that your options become limited.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 08:57 PM
5

Did you call the police? She's a vicious criminal, she shouldn't be out on the streets. I'm sorry but anyone that stabs someone in a verbal argument is a fucked up thug and deserves to be locked up.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 08:56 PM
-1

Whatever, the quotes don't lie. You're on record as saying that the raw data is "the same fucking thing" as the assertion that "women earn less than men for the same amount of work". Go back over your own comment history and its right there. You said that. It's demonstrably wrong.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 04:19 PM
0

Your initial assertion of "The problem is that the raw data ones support the feminist argument." is just flat out wrong. The feminism argument is that women are paid less for the same amount of work. These are the same fucking thing. You said this. You quoted what I said, and said that it is the SAME AS THE RAW DATA. Your words. If anyone is wrong here, its your fault for not reading correctly.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 04:14 PM
0

Of course you are wrong. We were talking about the raw data, which says that when you add up the total earnings of men, and the total earnings of women, men earn more. Clearly this data doesn't include the notion of "length of time worked", as you yourself said in your first reply to me that this is an "adjustment". So clearly, we were both talking about this set of raw data that DOES NOT INCLUDE said factor. Then, you go on to say that this raw data, is the same thing, as the feminist assertion…
/r/MensRights31/08/13 04:12 PM
1

No, you just don't have the courage, or should I say the cowardice of your convictions to admit that you were wrong. Now you're making a vague point about how "there are lots of studies, some include different things, others are different, and in some way, these may support the feminist assertion". I remind you, that you actually said, that the notion that "women earn less for the same amount of work", is the same as the raw data (in this specific case, don't now change the subject to something …
/r/MensRights31/08/13 04:08 PM
2

Why would I need to mind read when I can see that that is exactly what you're doing? I call you out for being wrong, then you go back and edit the original statement. It's not exactly hard to see your motive in such a case. And still, you haven't even qualified your point. You say that the feminist assertion that "women earn less than men for the same amount of work" is the same fucking thing (your words) as the raw data. I want to know how that is. The raw data says nothing about the "amount of…
/r/MensRights31/08/13 04:01 PM
1

No, you go back to edit your responses to include the things that I initially called you out for not putting in.
/r/MensRights31/08/13 03:53 PM
4

These are the same fucking thing. The raw data is literally that the total earnings don't add up. How are these the same fucking thing? The raw data says that when you add up the total earnings of men, and total earnings of women, men earn more. The raw data SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOURS WORKED. So therefore, how on earth does this support the feminist assertion that women are paid less than men for the same amount of work.. Fucking hell, you want to pride yourself on being an expert but you can't ev…
/r/MensRights31/08/13 03:52 PM
3

EDIT: Btw, for anyone reading, this berk is editing everything he is saying and going back to add things that he initially missed out or forgot to say. How honorable. The guy calls himself an expert but seems to be a complete dishonest cunt. What on earth are you on about? Your claim that "the raw data supports the feminist argument" is just completely, undeniably wrong. That's why I said that no, adjustments are not made, because the entire premise is flawed to begin with. The data, even withou…
/r/MensRights31/08/13 03:46 PM
6

EDIT: Nice Ninja edit there btw. You changed your tone quite a bit, didn't you? You have any more technical terms that you want to show off? I couldn't give a fuck if you're a humanities graduate or not. You're a cretinous berk, and a pretentious one at that. You didn't argue any of my points, all you basically said is "everything you said must be displayed in the form of a scientific paper", and then argued with me about the exact way of doing that. It's already been done. Look in the side bar.…
/r/MensRights31/08/13 03:35 PM
5

"adjustments are made". No, adjustments are NOT made. Reality is observed. It's a proven fact that in general, men work more hours than women. It's a proven fact that women take more sick days, and in general, are more geared toward family life as well as work, as opposed to solely focusing on work. These are not "adjustments" we make to the absurd claim that "women earn less than men for the same amount of work". These are the actual qualities of reality we observe when we laugh and ridicule sa…
/r/MensRights31/08/13 03:16 PM
51

Yes, it's the norm. Basically what you've discovered is that feminists, especially the academic ones, do not care about statistics, or facts. They care about narrative. Their narrative is that women are paid less than men. They will do anything to preserve that narrative. It doesn't matter that the "wage gap" doesn't take into account women's choices, more sick days, more family time, more family oriented lifestyles, working less hours than men etc.... what matters is that sound bite of "well we…
/r/MensRights30/08/13 11:50 PM
3

In some cases you don't even have to get married. All that has to happen is that a court has to be convinced that you were a "father figure" to her child, and then you're on the hook for money.
/r/MensRights30/08/13 05:33 PM
8

The size of the number is important. When someone says "well he has to pay that much because its in the best interests of the child".. the question comes up, what fucking child needs $15k a month?
/r/MensRights30/08/13 05:31 PM
0

What the fuck are you on about? All you do here is post weird drivel and absurdist nonsense. Are you one of those SRS clowns who tries to baffle and beguile people by talking complete garbage?
/r/MensRights29/08/13 07:49 PM
1

Well there you go then.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 11:06 PM
2

Crazy, isn't it? That someone who called for a calculated genocide against 90% of the male sex, is idolized by feminists all across the world.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 10:54 PM
6

Shut up with your facts, no-one cares about those. Can't you see that the female on male rape doesn't happen and its all men, and rape culture, and patriarchy?
/r/MensRights27/08/13 10:48 PM
4

That man has no real beliefs or values. He prints whatever sells the most. Right wing nonsense? Sure, you bet. Left wing relativistic drivel? Yep, got that too. He's a businessman who sold his soul for the dollar long ago.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 10:46 PM
6

Ok you're fine with it.. but do you respect the bodily autonomy of infant boys, to make their own decision when they are an adult of the age of reason? Or do you think that because YOU are fine with it, it should be legal to do this to infant boys, because hey whats the big deal?
/r/MensRights21/08/13 06:36 PM
-6

Stop congratulating yourself you glib cunt. Yes, we have no evidence that what he is saying is true. We can deal with that, and take what he is saying with a pinch of salt. But how do you propose he prove it exactly?
/r/MensRights21/08/13 06:31 PM
11

I think there is a correlation between how entitled and selfish a woman is, and whether she wants a man to pay for her. I have found during my life that the most reasonable and thoughtful women, see the inherent absurdity of asking men to pay for them. I have also found that it is likely the bitchy, abrasive, entitled weirdos who want you to pay for them.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 09:21 AM
17

If a woman expects me to pay for her I get up and leave right then. I'm sorry, but if they can't see the inherent absurdity and entitlement to what they're asking, then they aren't worth talking to. Most women I know have come round to the idea that men shouldn't have to pay for them. All it usually takes is "what would you say if I demanded you pay for me?", and they can typically see how absurd it is. However there still remains a large of amount of special little princesses who want a man to …
/r/MensRights14/08/13 09:15 AM
16

Yes. And have you also noticed that whenever women are involved, "best interests of the child" goes right out the window? If a dad abandons his child, he is a deadbeat. But if a woman abandons her child to the state, that is her choice, and she may just be going through a difficult part of her life. Should she have to reimburse the state for the money spent looking after that child? Nope! The taxpayer should pay, because it is the woman's right. "Best interests of the child" extends only as far …
/r/MensRights14/08/13 09:09 AM
12

Ssssh with your facts and statistics. The idea that women were behind the entirety of the munitions and factory work during the war MUST be maintained.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:56 AM
30

Hilarious, isn't it? Feminists campaigned hard against the idea of "female hysteria", then when it benefits them they jump ship and claim that they were overwhelmed or some other such nonsense.
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:53 AM
47

"Best interests of the child" Can we take a moment to reflect on how much of a crock of shit this is?
/r/MensRights14/08/13 08:49 AM
9

It's not endemic, its just a bunch of garbage that was blown way out of proportion. Now people say 'but Steubenville!!!" as some knock down argument to prove that no-one takes rape victims seriously. In reality, we take rape victims very seriously. So seriously in fact, that we arrest people on no evidence what soever, and then decide whether to charge them after the fact.
/r/MensRights12/08/13 04:08 PM
3

It's because on average, over the course of their lives, they work less, work shorter hours, and take more sick days than men. This isn't sexism, its just fact. Women tend to choose a balance between family life and working life whereas men are more likely to go all out on the work. Over the course of many years this all adds up and thus we have the bullshit saying "women earn less than men", which is technically true, but misleading in that it suggests they get paid less for the same amount of …
/r/MensRights11/08/13 12:03 AM
6

The UK is different.. although in the first place, the idea behind the vote was to give those who were willing to give their lives for their country a say in the running of that country. When women got the vote there was no such sacrifice on their part. I'm not saying that everyone should have to fight a war before they get a vote.. every adult should get a vote.. but it is telling is it not that the original suffragettes campaigned for the vote but then suspiciously forgot the part about fighti…
/r/MensRights10/08/13 11:58 PM
5

Are you trolling now? Because what you just said is absolutely ridiculous
/r/MensRights08/08/13 05:21 PM
13

If you're starting to "hate women" because you're into mens rights then you've lost sight of the goal here, pal. The goal is to achieve our aims.. whether they be equal representation in family courts, or any number of things.. there's no need to hate women in any of this.
/r/MensRights08/08/13 04:34 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter